Not good enough

[pottersrightboot]

A decent thread agains descends into a p****ng contest.

Be honest, none of us have any idea how our budget compares with the other sides in the division.

I prefer to go with KT's answer, (7th/8th) he is CEO after all, why would he lie to the supporters trust?

Wilder should be perservered with, we are going to improve on last season's finish. The fourth season in a row we have improved. You cannot argue that is progress.

Compared to previous 10 years before Wilder it is like manna from heaven.

I am not going to let one poxy performance last Saturday sway me from my view.

[Baboo]

[quote=&quotpottersrightboot&quot

Compared to previous 10 years before Wilder it is like manna from heaven.

I am not going to let one poxy performance last Saturday sway me from my view.[/quote]

Nor am I, but we have not been great for .... well a long time.

Not wanting to tempt fate of any kind but ... I can't help thinking what Arsenal fans felt like before &amp after the Tottenham game. A rather massive contrast I would suspect. And what about at 2-0 down - Wenger out?

[Snake]

Play-offs? We’re almost there now.

I assume you're just being provocative, but that really is a ridiculous statement. Port Vale are 3 points behind us with a game in hand, and there's almost a third of the season left to go. Almost anything could still happen (although I think we're probably safe from relegation).

With our set up and finances the play-offs are a shoo-in.

Anything less would be a failure and Tim would have to change his username yet again on this board in case someone pointed out his posting along the lines of “I prefer to go with KT's answer, (7th/8th) he is CEO after all, why would he lie to the supporters trust?

[Brahma Bull]

I will go with KT's answer having had the chance to ask him 'again' about it this afternoon. To suggest we have the third biggest budget based purely on our gates is simply incorrect.

Slappy has come out and explained the SCMP and that a number of factors contribute to the turnover figures, of which 55% can be used under the FL rules.

So that's Gates (as GY keeps mentioning), its sponsorship, its revenue and other commerical offerings, its Football Fortunes (Gifts and Donations). No doubt some clubs mask it up and can upsell commercial packages. That's how clubs can manipulate the rules.

So Crawley have 2000 people coming into the Broadfield. They have been on some wonderful profitable cup runs both last season and this. They have seen millions of pounds flood into the club as a result.

The best thing to do GY is for you to ring up the club, ask for a meeting with KT and allow him the opportunity to answer your questions.

[GodalmingYellow]

I will go with KT's answer having had the chance to ask him 'again' about it this afternoon. To suggest we have the third biggest budget based purely on our gates is simply incorrect.

Slappy has come out and explained the SCMP and that a number of factors contribute to the turnover figures, of which 55% can be used under the FL rules.

So that's Gates (as GY keeps mentioning), its sponsorship, its revenue and other commerical offerings, its Football Fortunes (Gifts and Donations). No doubt some clubs mask it up and can upsell commercial packages. That's how clubs can manipulate the rules.

So Crawley have 2000 people coming into the Broadfield. They have been on some wonderful profitable cup runs both last season and this. They have seen millions of pounds flood into the club as a result.

The best thing to do GY is for you to ring up the club, ask for a meeting with KT and allow him the opportunity to answer your questions.

So you are trying to persuade us that the commercial offerings and sponsorship and other non ticket revenue of Southend United is so massively greater than ours that it overcomes a 23% advantage that we have on ticket sales, and not only overcomes that advantage but exceeds it so much that Paul Sturrock can sign a squad significantly better than ours?

You are trying to persuade us that the commercial and sponsorship and other non ticket revenue of Shrewsbury Town is so massively bigger than ours that it overcomes a 42% advantage that we have on ticket sales, and not only overcomes it but is so significantly better than ours that Shrewsbury Town have a significantly better squad than us?

You are trying to persuade us that Cheltenham Town have commercial and sponsorship and other non-ticket revenue so massively bigger than ours that it overcomes a 110% advantage in ticket sales that we have, and not only overcomes that but exzceeds it so significantly that they have a much better squad than us?

Ditto Torquay where we have a 152% advantage on ticket sales.

For those not realising why I have selected those teams, it is because all of them are above us in the table.

Or could it simply be that Wilder has not done his job very well with one of the largest budgets in the division?

I am satisfied which scenario is true.

To suggest that our player budget is only 7th or 8th highest in the division is nonsense and I suspect not based on comparison of like for like, or on actual gates, or maybe it was based on last season's turnover. Whatever, it is clearly not accurate now, unless many at OUFC, including Kelvin Thomas, have not done their jobs properly, and I find that quite difficult to believe.

That one or two have come on here to wreck a perfectly good debate with accusations of pissing contests and the like is very disappointing indeed. I have no doubt that all those who were participating in the discussion were doing so in good faith without the need for these ridiculous and unnecessary interventions. No one was being abusive or personal, so just let the debate run.

[Isaac]

While not wanting to accuse KT of misleading us, it is possible he's said 7th or 8th to help take the pressure of Wilder (and the &quotor&quot is interesting as it's either side of the playoffs). I don't mind if this is the case actually, as fans don't need any more reasons to get grumpy with the manager.

GY - there will always be teams outperforming us on a lower budget, there are also teams underperforming on a higher budget. I would say Wilder is doing ok, perhaps underperforming a bit (although I'd be inclined to give him some leeway with the injury issues we've had this year). Even if he has got &quotone of the largest budgets in the division&quot then we're 7th out of 24, not 15th, it's not the right time to start unsettling the manager by talk of replacements.

And for the record, I think this has been a good thread, I've learnt something about the salary cap that I didn't know before.

[Brahma Bull]

Nope the only person I was trying to debate with and persuade is you GY. Having read through the other last three pages, it seems I don't need to convince many of the others, neither was that my intention.

So you still believe it to be nonsense, that's fine, I accept your views. I wasn't specifically comparing us to those sides you've mentioned, we were debating Crawley at the time.

Of course, some of those mentioned, Cheltenham Town, are doing superbly well and over-achieving. I agree with that.

But...it is relevant to also include Football Fortune money in this debate as that has a significant role to play in the debate.

I still think it worthwhile that you contact Mary Page and have a chat with Kelvin. His door will be open. Then you can report back.

[slappy]

Shrewsbury 2010 a/cs turnover 3,684,462
Cost of sales 3,557,754
Admin expenses 605,807
operating loss 479,099
(staff costs total 2,640,444)
----------------------------------------
OUFC 2010 a/cs turnover 2,614,045
direct operating costs 1,964,038
admin expenses 740,873
operating loss 90,866
(Staff costs - not disclosed)
----------------------------------------
SO: Shrewsbury spent as much on staff as OUFC's entire turnover for 2010. I think I can guess which club had the biggest playing budget.

[Isaac]

I notice that Port Vale have failed to pay their players for February.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17203259

My scepticism arond the wage cap is partly because of this sort of thing - if Port Vale are using just 55% of their turnover then paying their players shouldn't really be an issue should it? Before anyone points out that they are under transfer embargo due to the wage cap, then this happened a whole 4 days earlier.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17166373
Which is hardly a preventative measure, more closing the gate while the horse runs riot.

For info, the last time Port Vale submitted accounts (2010) their turnover was approx 3.6million.

[slappy]

Gillingham 2010 a/cs turnover 4,780,003
Cost of sales 3,894,647
Admin expenses 1,240,884
operating loss 355,528
[staff costs total 2,864,600]
-----------------------------
Bristol Rovers 2010 a/cs turnover 4,543,346
operating expenditure 6,334,519
donations ||195,436
player amortisation 247,674
operating loss 1,843,411
[player and staff costs 4,030,571]
-----------------------------
Crewe 2010 a/cs turnover 3,507,871
operating expenditure 4,528,134
operating loss 1,020,263
[staff costs 2,754,505]
-----------------------------
Sw***N 2010 a/cs turnover 5,335,163
cost of sales 4,952,345
operating expenditure 865,181 (includes exceptional credit of 1,044,136)
profit on player sales 983,197
operating profit 500,834
[staff costs 4,296,417]
-----------------------------
Port Vale 2010 a/cs turnover 3,561,788
cost of sales 687,669
player and staff costs 2,526,300 (of which players 1,296,016)
depreciation 91,096
other operating costs 513,851
operating loss 257,128
-----------------------------
So that's Shrewsbury, Bristol Rovers, Slumdon, Gillingham, Crewe, Port Vale (and presumably Crawley too) who all have much higher turnover and wage cap available than us, based on the past.

[Paul Cooper]

I don't think that in reality anybody would be hugely surprised if Crawley or Swin*** found themselves in financial difficulties through overspending in the not too distant future.

Shrewsbury tried to buy their way ut of the league last year and failed.

Time will tell, but to me the numbers don't add up and I guess Crawley's recent sale of Tubbs but more to the point the 'loan' of Bartlett to Peterborough when in a very strong position in the league says an awful lot.

Slappys numbers are intereesting as they at least give some albeit historical facts- will be very interestin g to see the 2011 numebrs when they come out.

[GodalmingYellow]

Gillingham 2010 a/cs turnover 4,780,003
Cost of sales 3,894,647
Admin expenses 1,240,884
operating loss 355,528
[staff costs total 2,864,600]
-----------------------------
Bristol Rovers 2010 a/cs turnover 4,543,346
operating expenditure 6,334,519
donations ||195,436
player amortisation 247,674
operating loss 1,843,411
[player and staff costs 4,030,571]
-----------------------------
Crewe 2010 a/cs turnover 3,507,871
operating expenditure 4,528,134
operating loss 1,020,263
[staff costs 2,754,505]
-----------------------------
Sw***N 2010 a/cs turnover 5,335,163
cost of sales 4,952,345
operating expenditure 865,181 (includes exceptional credit of 1,044,136)
profit on player sales 983,197
operating profit 500,834
[staff costs 4,296,417]
-----------------------------
Port Vale 2010 a/cs turnover 3,561,788
cost of sales 687,669
player and staff costs 2,526,300 (of which players 1,296,016)
depreciation 91,096
other operating costs 513,851
operating loss 257,128
-----------------------------
So that's Shrewsbury, Bristol Rovers, s*****n, Gillingham, Crewe, Port Vale (and presumably Crawley too) who all have much higher turnover and wage cap available than us, based on the past.

OK, I'm happy to concede pro tem because I don't have timeto research your figures properly, but clearly all those figures are previous years, and many of them are therefore completely irrelevant.

Swinedown for example is based on them being in a higher division with higher TV money, longer cup runs, higher gates, higher ticket prices , higher commercial rates and so on and so is not relevant to the current season wage cap.

Same applies to Bristol Rovers.

The wage cap was higher last year so spending was higher.

I'll give a full reply when I get a chance to research the data properly.

[slappy]

only abbreviated accounts (no P&ampL) for Cheltenham, Crawley, Rotherham. havn't looked at any others.

[pottersrightboot]

I dnlt understand why posters can't accept Kelvin's public answer re budgets. I mean, why would he lie?

We've had it for Saturday now by the way. Two of our best players out. No wonder Leven has been off colour recently. Be interested to see Chapman play . I'd put him straight in on Saturday, he's match fit.

This has been a terrible season for injuries, just bad luck or could any of this have been avoided?

[GodalmingYellow]

I dnlt understand why posters can't accept Kelvin's public answer re budgets. I mean, why would he lie?

We've had it for Saturday now by the way. Two of our best players out. No wonder Leven has been off colour recently. Be interested to see Chapman play . I'd put him straight in on Saturday, he's match fit.

This has been a terrible season for injuries, just bad luck or could any of this have been avoided?

No one has said Kelvin has lied.

We don't know what questions Kelvin has been asked or what answers he gave, or in what context these alleged conversations took place.

Apart from one single public statement by Kelvin at the start of the season, we've only had various spurious posts claiming that Kelvin reckons we have the 7th to 8th largest budget. None of what has been written on here about that has any degree of satisfactory certainty.

Even if Kelvin said &quoton a like for like basis our player wages bill is the 7th or 8th largest in League 2 this season&quot (and I very much doubt he has said that) that doesn't make him right.

What I don't understand is why some posters can't accept that their might be alternative views or explanations from the &quotofficial&quot line as interpreted by spurious sources. It is simple minded acceptance of anything someone is told that led to the club having idiots like Nick Merry in a place of power. Or may be the proliteriat are not allowed individual thoughts in this Brave New World.